Construction cost of new Queenstown HDB flats at $120,000 per unit
January 31st, 2010 | 
Author: Written by Our Correspondent
According to business weekly, the Edge, Sim Lian Construction Co. has been awarded a contract worth $99.8 million by the Housing & Development Board for the building works at Queenstown Redevelopment Contract 30 with a total of 774 dwelling units.
The contract is scheduled to start in March 2010 and be completed by February 2013.
This amounts to a construction cost of $129,180 per unit. The land cost, as for previous projects is unknown as HDB has never revealed the exact breakdown costs of HDB flats.
The land is owned by Singapore Land Authority, a statutory board.
As the project is situated in the prime district of Queenstown, the flats are likely to fetch more than $300,000 per unit when completed.
The prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in recent years by more than 30 per cent while the median wages of ordinary Singaporeans remain stagnant.
Though HDB has insisted that public housing is “heavily subsidized” in Singapore, there is a pervasive perception among Singaporeans that it is making a huge “profit” at their expense.
When HDB released that it has “lost” more than SGD$2 billion dollars last year “subsidizing” Singaporeans in new flats, few buy its story.
In this case, the exact cost price of each flat is likely to be less than $129,180 since Sim Lian Construction Co. is a private limited company and it will not bid for the project if it is not going to make a profit from it.
Despite rising frustration, anger and resentment on the ground at the sky-rocketing HDB prices, National Minister Mah Bow Tan continues to insist that public housing remains “affordable” to ordinary Singaporeans.
While he admitted that he has been “caught off guard” by the increasing prices of resale flats, he promised to “monitor the situation” closely to “address concerns” that prices may be spiraling out of control.
By the time Mr Mah realized the severity of the problem, HDB flats may well be priced beyond the reach of Singaporeans. Perhaps he will have to adjust to “afffordability benchmark” to above 30 per cent so that HDB can continue selling them at exorbitant prices.
Posted in Editorial
the fucker MBT is now crying for help: criticizing the opposition for targeting him.
He should be doing his job which he cocked up many times.
Even yeo chow tong was his casualty.
http://www.yeochowtong.com
He is not apologetic for messing up after being paid so much monies.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31/1/10
HDB is indeed making a good profit margin, unlike HDB in the good old days where public housing was within reach of every Singaporean. HDB is no longer performing its social duty and today not everyone can afford to buy public housing especially the young Singaporean couple….sad, so called Free Market.
Perhaps, time for both the PAP MPs and the two Opposition MPs to work together and get the Minister incharged to really fine tune HDB’s present policy of Free Market (we Ordinary Singaporeans are not blind and stupid as the figures are so clear cut and the huge profit margin is there).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Would like to highlight an error in the article.
It is not correct to say that HDB has never released the land cost or exact breakdown in the cost of construction.
The following is a link to a newspaper article where HDB released this information in 1981
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=50130
The scan of this article is priceless and I hope that Temasek Review will archive it for further use.
As asked by the writer who contributed the scan: Why is it that HDB can release the breakdown of the cost in 1981 but is unable to do it now in 2010?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In 1981, HDB is able to provide breakdown of cost, including cost of land, to justify HDB pricing. Now cannot…
see link below…
http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=27895.1
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
五鬼运财
How can HDB lose money from giving away ‘market-subsidy’? HDB simply acts an ‘idoit’ by paying SLA more monies than it should!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hate this shorty…….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The 1981 land costs released by HBB is eye-opening.
I’d like to suggest to Mr Mah BT – Perhaps there should be 2 sets of land costs for HDB buyers. One for citizens (including new citizens) and 1 for PRs and foreigners.
That will begin to make a meaningful difference to Singaporeans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lots of interesting property news in ST today…
Number of homeless people doubles (60 flats voluntarily returned to HDB each month… but how many are involuntary?)
Strict housing policies, illness and divorce leave some stuck
Chasing away leasehold worries (unprofessional first-hand account article with subjective views by writer)
Affordable flats still available (sheer propaganda)
What properties can PRs buy? (an outrage to citizens)
Private home owners eye HDB flats (blame shifting to pte property owners)
http://lushhomemedia.com/2010/01/31/number-of-homeless-people-doubles/
The number of homeless folk picked up by welfare officers driving around Singapore’s housing estates, beaches and streets has doubled in the past two years.
A total of 253 people were picked up by officers from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) last year, up from 123 in 2007. More than half were found sleeping in void decks of Housing Board blocks.
More than six in 10 were men aged below 60 and ‘capable of working’, said MCYS. The rest were divided equally between women and older men. Around 85 per cent were Singaporeans.
Most of the vagrants were admitted to government-run homes for destitutes where they get free food, clothes and shelter, but face curbs on their freedom.
Those picked up from void decks and beaches last year included 17 families, up from just four in 2007.
But these numbers do not paint the full picture as about 260 other people, including 43 families, are staying at two temporary shelters for the homeless, run by New Hope Community Services, a voluntary welfare organisation (VWO).
One of the shelters is for families, the other for single men, many of whom are homeless ex-offenders. Five additional flats were released to the VWO last week and it expects to take in another 40 people by the end of next month.
A third shelter, operated by Lakeside Family Service Centre, was set up just a month ago and is currently housing 12 families.
The family shelters are located in a series of three-room HDB flats. Many of the families staying at these places were referred there by welfare agencies such as community development councils (CDCs) and family service centres (FSCs).
Unlike welfare homes, the family shelters allow residents to come and go as they please and charge between $50 and $150 a month, depending on the size of the families and their ability to pay. Families must also cook their own meals, though food rations are provided.
While the rise in numbers coincided with Singapore’s deepest recession in years, MCYS said there is no direct evidence to link this with the financial crisis.
Ms Ngo Lee Yian, the ministry’s deputy director for residential and after-care services, said the biggest cause for the spike was ‘greater awareness’ on the part of Singaporeans who called the ComCare Call hotline (1800-222-0000) to tip off the ministry on homeless people in their neighbourhoods.
The spike in hotline calls led to increased patrols by officers from MCYS’ Destitute Persons Service, which, in turn, saw more people being picked up, said Ms Ngo. There were around 280 patrols last year, up from 160 in 2007.
Members of Parliament such as Charles Chong and Seah Kian Peng have seen a rise in cases of constituents seeking help over housing problems.
‘The number of HDB-related cases I see rose significantly after flat prices started to rise,’ said Mr Chong, who gets about 15 such appeals every week. ‘Most are requests for rental units, though cases involving evictions or homelessness remain few.’
Pastor Andrew Khoo, executive director of New Hope Community Services which runs the eponymous shelter, said there are three main factors causing the down-and-out to land up on his doorstep.
Some shelter residents were forced to sell their homes because they lost their jobs and could not keep up with mortgage payments. About 60 flats are voluntarily surrendered to the HDB every month, The Sunday Times understands.
Others, said Pastor Khoo, had taken loans from banks and could not service them after interest rates were raised.
Such people also typically have strained relationships with family members and are often ineligible to rent or buy HDB flats.
‘So they have no one to turn to for help,’ said Pastor Khoo.
He added that about 60 per cent of the families staying at his shelter are Malay, and 20 per cent are Indian.
The shelters can house the homeless for only three months. During that period, families work with social workers to find alternative accommodation. On release, about 40 per cent go to live with friends or relatives and about 30 per cent rent a flat from the HDB.
New Hope has a waiting list of about 30 families, most of them fear losing their homes. Currently, two to three families are packed in each three-room flat.
‘Some may have to sleep in the hall,’ said Pastor Khoo. ‘But that’s better than living out in the open.’
Source : Sunday Times – 31 Jan 2010
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is there to caught off guard?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think Gov screw up us for higher pay , maybe is time to change gov , give other chance , as Singaporean nothing to loose, thing will be better for everyone
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent reporting from Temasek Review. I wonder what that short idiot has to say about it. But hey, as the old one advised, remember this when voting comes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>How can HDB lose money from giving away ‘market-subsidy’? HDB simply acts an ‘idoit’ by paying SLA more monies than it should!
HDB, SLA, all different pockets of PAP lah… HAHA!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is very expensive!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On the matter of HDB housing, I suspect either the government miscalculated on the demand by PRs for HDB flats or they think the majority of the PRs will go for private housing. For whatever reasons only they themselves will know. By being reactive than proactive, we are now in this undesirable situation. And on the “affordability issue”’ I think HDB really needs to revisit the whole situation. What is wrong with admitting you are wrong in your own analysis or computations and then move forward with a solution. In being adamant you are right when the public has voiced many reasons why you are wrong (reasons seems to be justified)will not help to defuse the situation. In fact it will only generate more flak and resentment towards the government. Why the government did not build more flats over the last few years is anyone guess. But isn’t it better to err on the side of caution and build more flats to meet people’s aspirations. The actual cost for the government may not be that high, so the holding cost for any unsold flats can be manageable. It will eventually be sold anyway. HDB needs to examine their mission statement and their primary role in society. I am not denying government organisations must be at least be profitable to ensure its ability to support its opex but why must it be profitable in the tune of hundreds of millions and ever increasing each year. It is defintely not easy to manage a huge organisation and make right decisions, but aren’t they paid top dollar for the job. Having the guts to admit what is wrong and make the necessary corrections is a reflection of a a true leader which the public will come to respect. A true leader is one who walk the talk and have the guts to admit they are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is he saying that
1. the gonmin not monitor the HDB prices? That is why is he caught off guard? Hey, this thingie has been going on for so long already. What is there to be caught off-guard? Everyone knows the problem since years ago. Does he not invest in singapore property having so much salary (in the highest in the world category for politicians)?
2. so, he is gonna monitor? Is this a new function? Was there no Monitoring before?
Lady and gentlemen, i am confused by his words.
I beg him to contest in Hougang GRC. i want to cast a vote where he contests in .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MBT was probably “caught off guard” by MM Lee’s remarks too, that MBT deserves to be voted out if he can’t defend his policy.
I hope MBT will be “caught off guard” by the results of the coming election too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Using the 1981 breakdown, I did a few simple and quick calculations:
% of subsidy over total cost price.
1. The lowest price for a 3 room flat is in a new town, and the subsidy is 46.67%.
2. The highest price for a 3 room flat is in central, and the subsidy is 39%.
3. The lowest price for a 5 room flat is in a new town, and the subsidy is 27.17%.
4. The highest price for a 5 room flat is in central, and the subsidy is 11%. (data not clear).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My dad could pay off his old large 4-room HDB flat (larger than some new Punggol 5 room flats) when his salary was between $1200 to $2000, all within 15 years, without the need for my mom to contribute anything. We moved into the flat in 1977. Yet most Singaporean couples now need dual incomes to pay off their flats and very few can do it in 15 years. What other justifications can the ministers give?!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He should learn from Obama. Just say sorry for the lack of sufficient monitoring. In the end , again, is no one at fault once again? hallloooo? anybody home?
Selamat,
Suzie Bombaston
aka 1-leg bandit highjumper
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Firstly the land, hdb, sla all belongs to the citizen. The gahment is just a care taker to distribute the land. Why must they make sure pain are instilled to buyers of their own land.
Base on the definition of subsidy from market price we are punish by ft who caused resale price to go up.
Net net the citizen are victim of the ft policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh I see !
The flat cement is mixed with gold
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MABUK Lah.
…………………..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so.. wats the profit margin allowed by the MIW for this batch of HDB? 300%? 400%?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How to prove that they are lying ?
When we talk about a subsidy, it simply means that there should not be any profit and the selling price is below cost, agree ?
We also know for a fact that HDB was selling the flats at the Pinnacles at different prices as they were launched in different phases. But it is a fact that the construction of the project was awarded and completed in one phase by one sole main contractor ie. Chip Eng Seng.
So if the design, construction and land costs in terms of per square ft or metre for each flat unit remain the same, how the hell can HDB then sell and launch the flats at different selling prices at different phases ?
If there had been no profiteering and to be fair to the applicants allocated the units at the later phases, HDB should explain to them why are they being sold at a higher cost per unit area (as compared to those allocated the flats in earlier phases) when the design, construction and land costs are basically the same.
If HDB is unable to justify the different selling prices for the flats sold at the Pinnacles, it can only imply that HDB is indeed profiteering from asking for higher selling prices to take advantage of the prevaling market prices. This would mean that HDB just as greedy as private developers.
So at the end, you judge for yourself whether LKY, MBT and the rest of the PAP Ministers are indeed lying that there is a subsidy when there is none at all ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MBT can move to a single ward constituency and stand alone for the next GE if he considered himself as the best ND minister.
MBT can get out of Tampines GRC and instead go to Potong Pasir again for next GE and try his luck.
He is certainly welcome back to PP any time at his choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As you wrote and enlightened us on:
“Currently, two to three families are packed in each three-room flat.
‘Some may have to sleep in the hall,’ said Pastor Khoo. ‘But that’s better than living out in the open.’
Source : Sunday Times – 31 Jan 2010″
My Comments:
1. Has not PAP LKY’s HDB gone a full circle? Wasn’t like Malay Street dwelling units above shop house like that in the ’60s!!!
2. And now this IS beginning to happen through Pastor Andrew Khoo’s “New Hope Community” (or NHC) for what WP’s Low Thia Khiang called long ago in parliament as …??? … “The NEW POOR”!!!
3. The most shameful part of this for PAP government and ‘Sir’ MBT IS that IT IS NOW Happening in HDB’s 3-Rm flats for a start!!!
4. And the next shameful part is THAT IT IS NOT THE PAP government Nor PAP WHO IS DOING IT BUT “NHC”, an NGO!!!
5. And does not HDB have a limit of like 6 persons (?) for a 3-Rm flat?
6. Last but not the least. WHO is doing this to US “The Native Singaporeans”???
Do WE need to say more?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let’s all remember that the number of flats MBT committed to built each year in the next few years – ALSO include SERS En-Bloc ones!!! So, on the balance, flats for Young Couples and DOWN-GRADERS too well be lesser!!!
So what is this MAh “galloping” around in Merry-Go-Round” about??? GO AROUND IN “CIRCLES” RIGHT OR NOT!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Same pockets IS YAH LAW!!! AS like the TV yearly License Fee of $110 was clarified by MediaCorp as given to MDA??? While only a few year ago they clarified that it was “For better programs for school children!!! Why the change???
2. How to believe them now??? Just giving us some answers to ally and pacify us like pacifiers for babies???
3. Can you all kindly paragraph your posting to make for easier reading and noting of points and subject. Best to write point form like I do. Thanks.
4. Perhaps TR may wish to Itemize the postings too so that we can all just refer to and scroll them by their numbering. Thanks TR.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
3-in-1 kopitiam ThinkAll
Thanking u for waking up my slumber, we will not be fools this time when we cast our votes.
@@@i think the HDB originally was very honest to provide affordable public housing during the transitional phase from kampongs to flats period.
however, along the way, they realise that this is a cash cow that can be turned into a multi-billion dollar spinner for the gov’s coffer. (probably one of the reason why lao lee was so insistent and desperately to get the shortie mah into parliament knowing how shrewd he is.)
but not all should be blamed in the gov. the people have directly created this frenzy by driving up hdb prices in their frequent upgrading of bigger and better located flats.
both have the good and the bad. the good part is everyone’s happy to see their flats appreciate greatly in value. the bad part is also the good part – HDB flats become more and more expensive and making the new generation harder to own one. they probably would have to exhaust all their cpf in their lifetime just to be able to buy a hdb flat. that defeats the purpose of cpf which is meant to be a retirement fund.
how the gov is trying to resolve this contradiction of owning a flat and living comfortably with cpf during retirement is something they are still quite clueless.
their offer of buying back ur hdb flat and paying a meagre monthly fees for a certain number of years is like substituting itself for cpf’s chore.
again, our cpf doesn’t seem to be growing. what interests we accumulate from our savings go to pay for the loan interests accrued when cpf is used to buy HDB flat. the equation of return from our cpf vs hdb could be even negative.
from the general look at the situation, it’s like a transferrance of our retirement saving legally to HDB. subsidiary is another word the gov use to smoke the voters they are generally “taken good care of”. to be more precise, our money is definitely safe in their hands.
PAP: PEASANTS AGAIN PUNISHED.
Policies Anger People
Party Against People
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whatever the excuses or reasons they can give,
I expect MBT to say sorry publicly to those affected. He admitted there are people affect by his policies. So, to show sincerity of his words, I think he should have a press meeting and get CNA to video tape his public appology.
Before its too late.
“so helplessly dependent…. will fight to defend it.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This homeless population can be a source of support for alternatives.
But if these do not have the money or ability to use internet, or read english, this pool of strength could be wasted.
Alternative parties should find all means and ways to secure their votes.
There has never been so many homeless and unhappy faces with wage stagnations and retructured positions and jobs lost to foreigners if not due to retrenchment exercises.
This is the Golden Age for Alternatives. Indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the past elections, they used threats n more threats to frightened us ! I won’t be surprise they will do the same this coming election ! But this time we are prepared ! We hv decided to make a CHANGE !!! We are not children anymore, we hv grown up ! So Speak Up S’pore !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, in their “Dictionary”, a discount is a subsidy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Michael Lim on Sun, 31st Jan 2010 11:33 am
“What is wrong with admitting you are wrong in your own analysis or computations and then move forward with a solution.”
when a sizable number of them are being kicked out, then they will take the views of the people seriously.
look at taiwan & japan, where their senior political leaders have to apologise profusely in public for “wrongdoing”, to the extent of taking their own lives for the latter (too extreme and not to be encouraged). that is what we call accountability & taking responsbility not passing the buck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The land is owned by Singapore Land Authority, a government-linked company.”
SLA is a stautory board.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The land is owned by Singapore Land Authority, a government-linked company.”
SLA is a statutory board.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I suggest TR starts drafting letters of enquiry and on line petition to all the relevant government departments and start asking for answers as there are too many issues which are not transparent when it should be (HDB P&L etc)…we the citizen will sign for it on line to request for an answer and all these will be brought up during the next GE….lets see how many of them go unanswered by then…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even the 1981 breakdown figures are MISLEADING.
The unit costs include car park, recreation parks,walkways between blocks, sewage connection, road access, street lighting, drainage which there isn’t any substantial costs increase over the years.
How much more costly is it now of clearing an empty plot of land space for car park or kids recreational area than it was 30 years ago??
As the density goes up over the years, the costs PER UNIT of these so-called “land development costs” decreased.
IN FACT, I AM SUSPICIOUS IF THERE IS ANY SUBSIDY EVEN WAY BACK IN 1981.
WHY,
Construction costs include interest costs of financing construction but what is NOT known is what imputed interest charge goes into financing costs. I recalled in 1980, in the Reagonomic years, prime rates in Singapore is closer to 9% and if HDB impute the financing costs at 12% or more (when financing might have come from budgetary sources) the construction costs might well have been inflated.
Treating land costs per unit is also ridiculous. A 12-storey block could have close to 100 units in there. The total land costs to accomodate the block might be less than S$80,000 – being the size of land Government pays for compulsory land acquisition in the late 1970s. How much did the Government collect in land cost of these 100 units assuming just $15,000 per unit? Well approximately $1.5 million. They are making money out of land costs. My kampong land and structure was acquire for just S$7,500 approximately. If you take $80,000 ( to include my neighbours land plot as well assuming) divide by 100 units, the land costs per unit is just $800.
So where is the “subsidy” in 1981 after ficitious accounting of land and financing costs?? and all this “profit” of land costs invested in the bank for the next 99 years??
Interest costs have gone down a lot in last 15 years as we all can see of banking deposit rates we get now. And SLA made a lot of money from interest earned on inflated land sales to HDB ( that hit our pocket) in the last 45 years.
To talk about subsidy, the Government has to open up its book and explain its accounting policy on land, interest financing costs, sources of finance, how they charge and spread those “land development costs” etc etc.
I personally believe that land development costs should NOT include in construction costs because the profits from land sales by SLA to HDB over the 99 years could have paid for all these land development costs many many times over.
THE ACCOUNTING OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS COULD BE TOTALLY MISLEADING to give a false impression of subsidy even in 1981 – FORGET ABOUT NOW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clearly, the HDB and PAP Govt owes the public to disclose the actual costs of hdb construction, the land costs ect….. The government itself needs to be reminded that it is a civil servant that is elected every several years. It needs to be accountable tot the electorate. This is not an unreasonable request.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on! This is nothing new, my dear! The PRs are not likening to born and bred Singaporeans whom only have “single-minded or monotonous” opinions about Singapore’s properties. To a Singaporean, private properties must be and should be more expensive than hdb flats without knowing the real meaning of “QUALITY” of life and “CONDUCIVE and LIVABLE” conditions.
So sad to say, closes to 60% of born and bred Singaporeans who have voted for the despicable and contemptible million-dollar “dictators” are the real by-products of eunuchs by the DOM and his million-dollar cronies under their tyranny rules. A bunch of eunuchs with no vision, no guts, not courageous, not adventurous, idiotic, stupid, last but not least, hard striving, subservient, malleable, obedient, cowardly “marionettes” of the million-dollar “puppeteers” with gct leading as the highest ranking marionette of all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
EXPECTATIONS on Mon, 1st Feb 2010 10:03 am
Just for a quick calculation. If $1 is invested at a compunded interest rate of just 3% annually over 60 years would give $5.891.
That is to say, if I put $1 in a banking account that pays 3% every year and I do NOT withdraw that money, in 60 years time my bank account will show I have $5.891.
Now after 99 years, it would easily be over $10 because of compounding effects – interest earning interest. That is to say $1.03 multiply by a factor of 99 times
Taking a simplistic number of just $10 in 99 years time ( when the HDB must be given back to the Government), the value of land in my previous example of $1.5 million charged for the 100 units of HDB flat would come to $15 million.
When you divide $15 million by 100 units, it is $150,000 per unit.
In simple analogy, we are paying the costs of selling price (which HDB sells each unit to us) to rent it for 99 years and at the end of that, HDB would have reap another $150,000 per unit of interest income – THE LAND STILL BELONGS TO THEM.
Is that fair to Singaporeans – WITHOUT THE TRANSPARENCY OF ACCOUNTING AND PRICING CHARGES YET CLAIMING SUBSIDY???
I leave to all Singaporeans to judge for themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just a small comment…
“In this case, the exact cost price of each flat is likely to be less than $129,180 since Sim Lian Construction Co. is a private limited company and it will not bid for the project if it is not going to make a profit from it.”
How can the exact cost be less than S$129k?
I understand that Sim Lian won the tender by putting in the lowest price and probably the thinnest profit margin liao – do you mean that there’s someone else who would do it for free?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you very much for your insight into geeko lky and pappy company’s Two-Timer talky-talky-talk-talk to US ALl… all these years!!!
So how did so many Singaporeans believe geeko all these years and even many ah bengs and ah lians PLUS thos non beng and lians too??? I AM INDEED PUZZLED AND CONFUSED!!!
Have Singaporeans been SO NUMBED by old GEEKO’s INCESSANT “Brain Scaring MIW White-Washing” THAT THEIR BRAINS BEGAN TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT CAME OUT OF GEEKO-MOUTH???
WHICH POLITICIAN IN THE WESTERN WORLD SAID THATR “If your repeat something OFTEN ENOUGH, people WILL believe you even when it is not true”??? Reminder and quote anyone??? Good for REACTIVATING OUR BRAINS TO RESHAPE YAH!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ xtrocious on Mon, 1st Feb 2010 12:23 pm
“How can the exact cost be less than S$129k?”
What “BIG” difference to the HDB is the tender costs is $130,000 per unit instead of approximately $129,000 per unit?.
It there a “BIG” subsidy for buyers or is there still a “ASTRONOMICAL PROFIT” for HDB – be the unit construction costs is $129,000 or 130,000 $????
What sense of proportion and substance of truth are you crowing about???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In this case, the exact cost price of each flat is likely to be less than $129,180 since Sim Lian Construction Co. is a private limited company and it will not bid for the project if it is not going to make a profit from it.”
Sim Lian is a public listed company.
Only a daft will believe that hdb new flats are heavily subsidised!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@xtrocious
1) “thinnest” profit margin is still a profit margin which has to be accounted for.
2) 129K does not take into account development cost of common areas, facilities etc.
3) from experience in australia i don’t believe that the building cost can be 129K
a) low wage costs
b) lower quality materials
c) economies of scale due to high density
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Guys, very straight forward scenario here. If they don’t disclose that means they don’t come clean. Put it this way if they come clean why not disclose and dispel all suspicion from the people? There is no rocket science calculation difficult for us to understand, even market fish mongers and aunties can understand simple numbers. PAP has gone “too deep” and they can’t turn back now. Turning back will only dilute their popularity and power. So the only solution is to keep lying to the people, maintain one party rule so that no one checks on them. HDB is no longer a housing charter, its a profit making developer now… Very sad indeed. It shows that history teaches us about absolute power will eventually turn into corruption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why not that shortie MBT explain in detail how HDB subsidise the people?? Again, if no explanation, he doesn’t come clean cos if he’s clean he’ll surely step forward to clarify himself. After all nobody wants to be seen as corrupted, especially when they wear “white”. I believe they began with sincere hearts to build the nation but later on absolute power creeps in then they got corrupted. They are in a dilemma now. Once corrupted you are stained and it doesn’t come off easily even how you explain…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0